False claims made by the media about immigration

[GaryC 7]

Is your sense of right and wrong dependent solely on whether the laws on the books says so?

Sorry for making another reference to Gupt, but I think he gave you an excellent explanation and samples of when the law was not just. Do you agree that sometimes we have laws that are not just?

Please tell me your just being stubborn for the sake of an argument. You think the fact that we have laws to regulate who comes into the country is wrong???? And you think that breaking those laws is right???? Please tell me your just being argumentitive for the sake of a good argument. I have more respect for you than that.

Gary, this is something that you are stuck on, and I'm not sure how else to explain it. Please answer the question: Do you follow what is right and wrong solely on the basis of whether something is legal or not?

No, but in this case the law is right (controling our borders) and breaking that law is wrong. We should strengthen our border control, not throw it open.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes! I meant, like the rest of us that are involved in the process. Most of these "criminals" will not be able to apply for visas on their own. In fact, if visa-overstays are sometimes denied, then these "criminals" for all intensive purposes should potentially be permanently denied access into the United States.

I think they are too separate issues. The millions of illegal immigrants came here, not for citizenship, but for economic reasons. Mexico is our neighbor. It's being blindsided to simply continue regarding them as outlaws running amok in this country instead of looking at the causes and reasonable solutions. I think granting them a temporary visa (particularly for those who've been working here for 10 years) is reasonable solution. Deportation isn't even an option. Then we should start offering work visas for low skilled workers. It's an economic problem that requires economic solutions.

[keltic 1]

The view that if one breaks a law then they are a criminal or in a similar mindset is an opinion. You're thinking in absolutes which I find odd since you've claimed to be some sort of liberal?

no... its not an opinion... its a DEFINITION:

crim·i·nal (kr?m'?-n?l)

adj.

Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.

Relating to the administration of penal law.

Guilty of crime.

Characteristic of a criminal.

Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.

n. One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

If you follow such a literal interpretation then anyone who breaks the law is a criminal (see motorists who speed, run a stop sign) and yet nobody is talking about speeding motorists as ones who thumb their nose at the law - do you see the difference? The implication is that because they have broken a single immigration law, they are of the criminal mindset. Do you believe that?

I'll use another example: O'Reilly is notorious for calling people a 'Liar'. The connotation is that the person is untrustworthy - incapable of ever telling the truth. Clinton was labelled a 'Liar' because he lied about his sexual escapades. Again, it's thinking in absolutes...if one tells a lie, they must be a liar.

dont try to make it sound like they are just breaking one little harmless law, steven...

they are breaking multiple laws... from tax evasion to driving uninsured to fraud... and this is without even *trying* to be criminal

a speeder could be speeding and not really realize it... and the speeder gets a ticket when he gets caught... therefore pays a penalty...

and if that speeder repeatedly violates the law, he will have his license revoked

punishments are tailored to fit the crime... an illegal alien does not accidentally break the law when he/she crosses the border... they know full well what they are doing... thats criminal intent... why is that not a problem for you?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is your sense of right and wrong dependent solely on whether the laws on the books says so?

Sorry for making another reference to Gupt, but I think he gave you an excellent explanation and samples of when the law was not just. Do you agree that sometimes we have laws that are not just?

Please tell me your just being stubborn for the sake of an argument. You think the fact that we have laws to regulate who comes into the country is wrong???? And you think that breaking those laws is right???? Please tell me your just being argumentitive for the sake of a good argument. I have more respect for you than that.

Gary, this is something that you are stuck on, and I'm not sure how else to explain it. Please answer the question: Do you follow what is right and wrong solely on the basis of whether something is legal or not?

No, but in this case the law is right (controling our borders) and breaking that law is wrong. We should strengthen our border control, not throw it open.

But that's an opinion and it's being used a the key issue in the debate over immigration as if it is black and white. It's an opinion...nothing more.

[keltic 1]

Again, it's thinking in absolutes...if one tells a lie, they must be a liar.

Plenty of people, even here on VJ, believe that. It's a shame, sometimes people forget how complex they are themselves and impose a simplistic view of right and wrong on others. Others must be automatons, either when we ourselves are not.

some things are complex... some things are simplistic...

in regards to this, i do view it in a simplistic manner... there are reasons the laws are there... they should be enforced...

should some laws be changed? yes... go about it in the right manner... but just deciding to go vigilante and disregard the law because you feel like it and you know better than the rest of the country is not right... when slavery was abolished, it was done by changing the law and enforcing it...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

when slavery was abolished, it was done by changing the law and enforcing it...

Umm, no. That's not quite how it was done. It was, let we say, a much more turbulent and violent process than that.

[keltic 1]

Is your sense of right and wrong dependent solely on whether the laws on the books says so?

Sorry for making another reference to Gupt, but I think he gave you an excellent explanation and samples of when the law was not just. Do you agree that sometimes we have laws that are not just?

Please tell me your just being stubborn for the sake of an argument. You think the fact that we have laws to regulate who comes into the country is wrong???? And you think that breaking those laws is right???? Please tell me your just being argumentitive for the sake of a good argument. I have more respect for you than that.

Gary, this is something that you are stuck on, and I'm not sure how else to explain it. Please answer the question: Do you follow what is right and wrong solely on the basis of whether something is legal or not?

No, but in this case the law is right (controling our borders) and breaking that law is wrong. We should strengthen our border control, not throw it open.

But that's an opinion and it's being used a the key issue in the debate over immigration as if it is black and white. It's an opinion...nothing more.

it is not an opinion that breaking the law is wrong... it is a definition... see my post above...

now, if you dont feel the law is just, then try to change it... that is a different issue...

lets go back to your analogy of the speeder...

i dont believe that 25 mph should be the speed limit on the roads in my township... therefore, i will just drive 50 mph on them... and when i get caught, i will simply say that the law is wrong and i shouldnt be punished... and DEMAND that everyone be allowed to drive however fast they want on any road

or

i dont believe that 25 mph should be the speed limit on the roads in my township... therefore, i will lobby the board of commisioners to change that limit... i will rally my neighbors to do the same... the commisioners then either comply or deny... at which point, i have to obey the law

hmmm, which way is right?

to bring this from another viewpoint... i didnt vote for dumbya... i think the election was suspect... can i just walk in to the white house and toss him out? nope... he got the electoral votes (whether rightly or wrongly is another discussion) so he is the president... thats the law as it stands... i can moan and b!tch about whether it is right or wrong, or moral or immoral... but it wont change the law and the fact that he is the president

when slavery was abolished, it was done by changing the law and enforcing it...

Umm, no. That's not quite how it was done. It was, let we say, a much more turbulent and violent process than that.

in the end, that was how it was done... yes, it took a war to basically make it come about... but it is a law... and it is enforced... well, *THAT* is questionable... look how illegal aliens are exploited...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

when slavery was abolished, it was done by changing the law and enforcing it...

Umm, no. That's not quite how it was done. It was, let we say, a much more turbulent and violent process than that.

in the end, that was how it was done... yes, it took a war to basically make it come about...

And in your parallel fantasy universe, slavery would have been abolished when it was abolished without resorting to war and without people of conscience encouraging slaves to engage in illegal acts (the "underground railroad")?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

when slavery was abolished, it was done by changing the law and enforcing it...

Umm, no. That's not quite how it was done. It was, let we say, a much more turbulent and violent process than that.

Not to mention this country's birth of independence from England. We in effect, disregarded the King's laws.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

when slavery was abolished, it was done by changing the law and enforcing it...

Umm, no. That's not quite how it was done. It was, let we say, a much more turbulent and violent process than that.

Not to mention this country's birth of independence from England. We in effect, disregarded the King's laws.

Seditionist scumbags!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

when slavery was abolished, it was done by changing the law and enforcing it...

Umm, no. That's not quite how it was done. It was, let we say, a much more turbulent and violent process than that.

Not to mention this country's birth of independence from England. We in effect, disregarded the King's laws.

Seditionist scumbags!

Deport 'em all!

[keltic 1]

when slavery was abolished, it was done by changing the law and enforcing it...

Umm, no. That's not quite how it was done. It was, let we say, a much more turbulent and violent process than that.

in the end, that was how it was done... yes, it took a war to basically make it come about...

And in your parallel fantasy universe, slavery would have been abolished when it was abolished without resorting to war and without people of conscience encouraging slaves to engage in illegal acts (the "underground railroad")?

what fantasy? the emancipation proclamation was made... the states that didnt agree with it attemted to secede... the civil war followed and at the end of it came the 13th amendment... however laws had been made in most states to abolish slavery before that time

i fail to see what fantasy is there... thats just history

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The fantasy is your insistence that the law can always be changed by acting within the law.

[keltic 1]

when slavery was abolished, it was done by changing the law and enforcing it...

Umm, no. That's not quite how it was done. It was, let we say, a much more turbulent and violent process than that.

Not to mention this country's birth of independence from England. We in effect, disregarded the King's laws.

Seditionist scumbags!

Deport 'em all!

steven,

why is it so horrible that i believe that if someone believes a law is wrong they should go about changing the law instead of just breaking it?

why is it so horrible that i want to protect myself and my family by expecting our government to enforce the laws that check criminal and health backgrounds?

why is it so horrible that i believe that each country should take care of its own? mexico has the ability to be an affluent country and have affluent citizens... should we just encourage the corruption to continue by offering an amnesty to all those who came illegally... thereby setting even more of a precedent that if illegals can just cross the border and wait long enough they will be given what others actually have the right to? do all the other countries in this world owe me the same rights that america affords me?

yes, economics drive this... but there is a lot of corruption that, no matter what laws we try to make to ease immigration to the US, will change... it will only fuel those countries to encourage more of their citizens to come here to send money back... it is sad that nothing seems to have been learned by the last amnesty

[keltic 1]

The fantasy is your insistence that the law can always be changed by acting within the law.

isnt that what democracy is?

i personally dont want to live in anarchy... and if you wish to disregard one law, then why not disregard all of them?

you may not like what the majority of this country wants... i may not like it... but if its the majority, it wins (if its not relegated to the electoral college)